That sounds very shakey to me. Its not a personal choice the parents are making they are making a choice over someone elses life. Ensuring someone is deprived of a sense is a little barabaric, the child would have no option. Where then is the childs right to excercise a choice or free will. If thats OK whats wrong with me just having the child deafened when its born, after all its my choice by your interpretation, if I think thats best for the child who are you to interfere.

If that happens then you've got to consider whether nthat child later has the right to sue their parents for a choice they made for them. Or even if they can press charges for criminal actions in interfering with their conception.

No, Im sorry, that suggestion is deeply flawed if you want to justify it as a matter of 'choice'

Firstly. I have not mentioned the childs view of 'harm'. My comment is about the issue of choice which would be removed from the child by the parents action. It is not a comment on 'harm' as you would be aware had you taken my whole comment in context.

Secondly. The comment is a response to bluefaeries post and bluefaeries view of choice. It is not a response to you or anything you have said. So what you think the case to be is quite irrelevant to my comment which may only be interpreted by reference to the comment it responds to..

This thread is actually quite interesting it would be a shame if you turned it into yet another seven page tangental one person excessively verbose and inaccurate mind fart as is your wont.

Marios we're trying to the points raised by BlueFaerie. You are misinterpreting my views (at least) and verging on being a troll by derailing the thread. 

Choosing to have a child with someone because their disability will ensure that the child has it as well is as bad as choosing you child's father based on the colour of his skin (and I've seen that happen- "OOhh I think I'd like a nice coffee coloured baby, to match me new Gucchi hand bag"), except with even worse consequences for the child.

However I don't think I've ever met anyone who's done the second- though I have worked with many young people from the first example.

Trevor Philips is the head of the CRE (Commission For Racial Equality) hence his relevance to conversations about our multi-cultural society.

Anyway I think we've definitely fallen off the main point here.

Is it a bad thing that a CHAV/Old Lady/Social Worker make insulting (directly or indirectly) comments to a disabled person?

YES

What would cause them to make these comments?  On the face of it probably ignorance, fear or just intentionally wanting to hurt someone for whatever reason.

Is there anything wrong with laws making sure people are outwardly civil to each other?  NO, hence why there are laws against breach of the peace, making racist remarks etc.  So why is the fact that businesses are being forced not to discriminate on the basis of disability a bad thing?  It happens, and society has agreed it shouldn't (hence the legislation).

I can't actually believe that people are suggesting this kind of behaviour is remotely acceptable for whatever reason.  With regards to Marios' comment about 'utopian ideals' I think as unachievable as utopia is, it is a sad day when people stop striving for it.  Do I want to live in a world without discrimination? YES.  Have society without anti-discrimination law been able to knock discrimination on its head as it is bad social practice? NO.  So what's wrong with MAKING people not discriminate? 

I think people over philosophise and theorise on issues.  It is far too easy to get bogged down in irrelevant points and issues.  I agree that people should stand up for their fellow man.  Unfortunately that often doesn't happen and thats why you need the law to regulate.

If I wanted to listen to an arsehole, I'd fart!

In Bluefairies case they see a blind young woman, not a young woman who happens to be blind. I've seen this problem before particularly as I have what these days is called an unseen disability. I happen to suffer from epilepsy. At one point due to it being quiet unstable I couldn't work because of it. Mostly I couldnt work because people saw the disability and that I might have a seizure/fit and didn't see my qualifications experience etc.....

I've had people look at me when asking what are you doing now and I've said I'm currently on disablity related income support etc too look at me and say well I' can't see anything wrong with you so you must be scrounging. This withoout bothering to find out the facts. So there is a lot of discrimination out there, not always on purpose.

Oh and I don't see myself as disabled just as someone who happens to have what society sees as a disability.

As a branch from Bluefaries main points prehaps we should look arround the lrp community that we are all members of and see just how many people have disabilities or health problems of one sort or another with them rarely causing a problem for anyone but the person with that problem and then normaly they've found a way of doing everything they want to/are able to!

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

Life, meh!

I would have to disagree on consideration.

One of the principal things that should be considered in enacting the law is whether or not that law is enforcable. trying to enforce 'politeness' is IMHO a complete waste of Police time. Further more it calls for a complex abstract judgment call on the part of the enforcing officer. Breach of the peace laws are designed to stop major disturbances which threaten the whole community or to take in those who have extravagantly stepped over the line. They are not designed to stop or prevent everyday rudeness, which is (like it or not) a facet of free speech. It is up to society as a whole not legislation and government enforcment to provoke such a change. Arguing that it is the responsibility of the authorities to enforce 'civilness' is asking for a police state.